WASHINGTON — The sequence of events is familiar: A lower court judge blocks a part of President Donald Trump’s agenda, an appellate panel refuses to put the order on hold while the case continues and the Justice Department turns to the Supreme Court.
Trump administration lawyers have filed emergency appeals with the nation’s highest court a little less than once a week on average since Trump began his second term.
The court is not being asked to render a final decision but rather to set the rules of the road while the case makes it way through the courts.
The justices have issued orders in 11 cases so far, and the Trump administration has won more than it has lost.
Among the administration’s victories was an order allowing it to enforce the Republican president’s ban of on transgender military service members. Among its losses was a prohibition on using an 18th century wartime law called the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans alleged to be gang members to a notorious prison in El Salvador.
The most recent emergency filing arrived May 27.
The Trump administration’s latest appeal asks the high court to halt an order by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston. The White House violated his earlier order, Murphy found, with a deportation flight bound for the African nation carrying people from other countries who had been convicted of crimes in the U.S.
Those immigrants must get a real chance to raise any fears that being sent there could put them in danger, Murphy wrote.
Trump’s top Supreme Court lawyer, Solicitor General D. John Sauer, asked for an immediate high court order that would allow the third-country deportations to resume.
Murphy has stalled efforts to carry out deportations of migrants who can’t be returned to their home countries, Sauer wrote. Finding countries willing to take them is “a delicate diplomatic endeavor” and the court requirements are a major setback, he said.
Lawyers for the deported men have until Wednesday to respond.
The Department of Government Efficiency, overseen by billionaire Trump adviser Elon Musk until his departure on Friday, is resisting a lawsuit calling for it to publicly disclose information about its operations.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington argues in a lawsuit that DOGE, which has been central to Trump’s push to remake the government, is a federal agency and must be subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
CREW claims that DOGE “wields shockingly broad power” with no transparency about its actions. The administration says DOGE is just a presidential advisory body that is exempt from FOIA disclosures.
U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper had found that its role is likely more than just advisory, especially in helping to shutter the U.S. Agency for International Development and cut billions of dollars in government contracts.
The administration appealed Cooper’s orders requiring documents be turned over and acting Administrator Amy Gleason to answer questions under oath.
Last week, Chief Justice John Roberts agreed to temporarily pause the orders pending additional word from the Supreme Court.
Social Security has personal data on nearly everyone in the country, including school records, bank details, salary information and medical and mental health records for disability recipients, according to court documents.
The Trump administration says DOGE needs access to Social Security’s systems as part of its mission to target waste in the federal government.
But U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander in Maryland restricted the team’s access to Social Security under federal privacy laws, saying DOGE’s efforts at the agency amounted to a “fishing expedition” based on “little more than suspicion” of fraud.
The judge is disrupting DOGE’s work and interfering with decisions that belong to the executive branch, not courts, Sauer wrote in asking the high court to block Hollander’s order in the suit filed by labor unions and retirees.
The justices could act anytime.
Several judges quickly blocked an executive order Trump signed his first day in office that would deny citizenship to children who are born to people who are in the country illegally or temporarily.
The administration appealed three court orders that prohibit the changes from taking effect anywhere in the country.
Earlier in May, the justices took the rare step of hearing arguments in an emergency appeal. It’s unclear how the case will come out, but the court seemed intent on keeping the changes on hold while looking for a way to scale back nationwide court orders.
One possibility advanced by some justices was to find a different legal mechanism, perhaps a class action, to accomplish essentially the same thing as the nationwide injunctions blocking Trump’s citizenship order.
Nationwide injunctions have emerged as an important check on Trump’s efforts to remake the government and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies.
Judges have issued 40 nationwide injunctions since Trump began his second term in January, Sauer told the court during the arguments.
The court could act anytime, but almost certainly no later than early summer.
___
Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.
